Administrative Segregation Management

Report
Special Issues Seminar
Association of State Correctional Administrators
ADMINISTRATIVE
SEGREGATION
MANAGEMENT
HAROLD CLARKE, DIRECTOR
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Segregation Reduction
Step-Down Plan
at
Red Onion State Prison and Wallens Ridge State Prison
Administrative Segregation Operational Strategy
Guided by Evidence-Based Practices
Project Goals:
 Develop a pathway for offenders to successfully step-down from administrative
segregation (ad seg) to lower security levels in a way that:
 maintains public, staff and offender safety
 applies the principles of evidence-based practices
 Closely link Red Onion State Prison and Wallens Ridge State Prison for the
management and programming of administrative segregation offenders in order
to:
 reduce staff stress by housing multiple security levels at each facility and
providing varied post assignment options
 create a “proving ground” to determine when ad seg offenders are able to
function safely in a lower security environment
 Infuse research and evaluation into the operational design:
 by setting observable and measurable standards as a means to ensure fidelity
 assessing outcome effectiveness
 evaluation and research together will determine areas of strength and areas
for adjustment
Project Results: Administrative
Segregation Reduction:
500
438
400
350
32%
450
457
466
466
441 437
409
382 385
369
355
337 315
300
250
200
Strategies Employed:
Utilizing the science of Evidence Based Practices
 Develop strategy and guidelines for the re-design of
administrative segregation
 Tighten assignment criteria
 Level S Offenders:

Define Types & Criteria for Review
 Identify Offenders with the potential for extreme and/or
deadly violence. (Intensive Management -IM)
 Identify Offenders with frequent recurring disciplinary
violations for assaultive behavior, destruction of state
property or other serious & repetitive disciplinary violations.
(Special Management –SM)
Tightening Assignment Criteria:
 Assaultive Behavior
 Assault on Staff
 Aggravated Assault on
Offender
 Demonstration of or
potential for deadly
violence in the
institution
 Setting Fire resulting in
injury
 Rioting; Seizing
Hostages
 Commission of Crime of
Exceptional Violence
and/or Notoriety
 Serious Disciplinary
Behavior (represents a
threat level too great for
the safety and security of
a lower level institution)
 Escape Risk - requiring
maximum security
supervision
Identifying Long Term Offenders:
Intensive Management - IM
 Potential for extreme and deadly
violence
 History indicates willingness to carry out serious or
deadly harm
 Institutional charges with intent to seriously harm or
kill staff or offenders
 Offenders with high escape risk
 High Profile or Notorious Crimes
Identifying Repetitive Offenders
Special Management - SM
 Assignment Criteria:
 Frequent, recurring disciplinary violations at lower
security levels resulting in harm to staff or offenders –
without intent for serious harm or intent to kill
 Pattern of repeated disruptive behavior resulting in
significant property damage
 Offenders who intentionally commit disciplinary
violations with the goal of remaining segregated
 Interventions at lower security levels ineffective
Pathways to Lower Security:
Increased
Responsible
Behavior
Reduced
Disciplinary
Infractions
Evidence-Based
Programming
Incentives
Special Management – A Three Tiered System
Programming/Assessment:
COMPAS
URICA
computerized decision-support
system for treatment planning and
management
Responsiveness to
Change
Case Plan and
Management
Path Selection
Criminal
Thinking Scales
Introduced to develop a
baseline of criminogenic
thinking
TCU Criminogenic
Scales
-Social functioning
-Motivation
-Engagement
-Psychological functioning
-Decision Making
Programming Objectives:

Motivate offenders to participate in the step-down program which
includes three areas of commitment by the offender:
1. Program participation goals
2. Disciplinary Violation goals
3. Responsible behavior goals (e.g., personal hygiene, standing for count,
cell compliance, deportment—satisfactory rapport)

Participation is voluntary

Offenders who choose to participate in the step-down program earn
increasing privileges and eligibility for classification reduction and
transfer to lower security level facilities
Available Privileges:
Earn Incentives/Privileges Incrementally such as:
 Increased commissary spend limit
 Increased check-out number of books from library
 Eligibility for institutional jobs
 Increased visitation & eligibility for video visitation
 Increased phone call frequency
 Programming out of cell
Programming Phase 1:
 Therapeutic Modules
 Counselor & Treatment Officer
Facilitation
 Challenge Series Interactive
Journals (addressing errors in
thinking and building healthy
support systems)
Controlled Movement to Program
Treatment Officer Facilitation
Programming Phase 2:
Security
Programming Chairs

 Establish
Program Goals
Programming – Security Level 6:
 Phase 1 & 2
 Unrestrained
 Thinking for a
Change
 Small Group
Pod Recreation
 Group Meals
Intensive Management(IM)/ Special Management(SM)
Pathway
Program Location
IM
Management Path
IM
Program Delivery
SM
Management Path
SM Program
Delivery
IM 0
In - Cell
SM 0
In - Cell
IM 1
Therapeutic Modules
SM 1
Therapeutic Modules
IM 2
Program Chairs
SM 2
Program Chairs
SL 6
IM Closed Pod
Program Chairs
SL6, *SIP, **SAM,
Step Down
Small Groups
Level 1
SL6
IM Closed Pod
Level 1
Small Groups
SL6, *SIP, **SAM,
Step Down
Small Groups
(Double cell)
Level 2
Level 2
*SIP - Secure Integrated Pod
Housing for offenders with a pattern of intentionally committing numerous minor
disciplinary offenses to remain in segregation.
**SAM – Shared Allied Management
Housing for offenders that are easily bullied, manipulated, taken advantage and / or lower
cognitive processing.
Five levels of Review:

Regional Operations Chief, External Review



In advance of offender assignment to administrative
segregation (Level “S”)
Reduction from Security Level 6 to Security Level 5
Institutional Classification Authority





Review minimum of every 90 days (or more frequently as
necessary) while assigned to ad segregation
Ensures classification is consistent with policy
Refers appropriate offenders to Dual Treatment Team
Reduction from Security Level S to Level 6
Reduction from Security Level 6 to Security Level 5

Five levels of Review (continued):
Dual Treatment Team Review



Wardens Review





Assign offenders to appropriate Management Path – IM or SM
Referring offenders to Warden for advancement to Security Level 6
Review and Recommend for Level S
For reassignment from Level S to Level 6
For reassignment from Level 6 to Level 5
For transfers to other Level 5 or lower facility
Agency Annual External Team Review
 Includes review of the following:
--Is the offender appropriately assigned to Level “S”?
--Does the offender meet the criteria for the Intensive Management or Special
Management path to which they are assigned?
--Has the Dual Treatment Team made appropriate decisions to advance the
offender through the step-down process?
Summary of Reviews
 Assignment:




Referring Facility Warden Review
Central Classification Review (Headquarters)
Ad Seg Facility Warden Review
Regional Operations Chief Approval
 Facility Reviews:


Minimum 90 day Institutional Classification Authority
 Weekly Review of Case Plan Management
Referral to multi-disciplinary Dual Treatment Team
 Review Case Plan management in its entirety
 The Facility Dual Treatment Review Team consist of : EBP Manager; Program Manager, Unit
Manager, Intelligence, QMHP, Counselor, Correctional Officer, Medical
 External Reviews:


Agency annual review of all offenders assigned to administrative segregation to ensure:
 Is the offender appropriately assigned?
 Does offender meet the criteria for the management path they are assigned?
 Review Action of dual treatment team
Includes: Chief of Corrections Operations; Regional Operations Chief; Regional Administrator; Chief
of Classification, Director of Programs and Reentry; Statewide EBP Manager; Director of Mental
Health Services, Director of Psychiatric Services; Chief Physician

similar documents